Republican Representative and presidential candidate Ron Paul took a day off from campaigning in the primary voting state of South Carolina to return to Washington and introduce legislation that would repeal portions of a controversial new law that allows indefinite military detention of individuals.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), in addition to delegating funding for US presence in the Middle East, would also give the military broad powers to detain individuals on US soil who are suspected of being connected to terrorists. Additionally, detainees would not be guaranteed a trial, and could be held indefinitely.

The law easily passed both the House and Senate in December, and was signed into law by President Obama on New Year's Eve, who said he approved it despite having "serious reservations".

Sources and legal analysts differ over whether these provisions could apply to US citizens, but general consensus is that the relevant parts of NDAA are phrased vaguely.

From Washington, Paul blasted the provisions. "Section 1021 provides for the possibility of the US military acting as a kind of police force on US soil, apprehending terror suspects—including Americans—and whisking them off to an undisclosed location indefinitely," said the twelve-term Texas congressman.

"No right to attorney, no right to trial, no day in court [...] This is precisely the kind of egregious distortion of justice that Americans have always ridiculed in so many dictatorships overseas. Is this really the kind of United States we want to create in the name of fighting terrorism?"

He added: "Some have argued that nothing in Section 1021 explicitly mandates holding Americans without trial, but it employs vague language radically expanding the detention authority to include anyone who has 'substantially supported' certain terrorist groups or 'associated forces'. No one has defined what those two terms mean. What is an 'associated force'?"

Paul's son Rand, who is serving as a Senator from Kentucky, similarly objected to the legislation.

Other lawmakers on Capitol Hill, however, differed. Lindsay Graham from South Carolina said in December that the broad measures were necessary for national security. "It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next. And when they say, 'I want my lawyer,' you tell them, 'Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.'"

Paul's bill is numbered H.R. 3785; he was its only sponsor. A related amendment to NDAA, proposed back in mid-December by Rep. Jeffrey Landry to soften the detention provisions, was struck down.

billcummings wrote:If R.P. withdraws can I still write him in and have it make any kind of a meaningful statement?

Dr. Paul, won't be dropping out. He's in it to the Republican convention.He is the only meangiful statement candidate in the race.

Goldman Sacs backs Romney and Obama. Concerned citizens back Ron Paul.Its a meaningful statement to donate to a candidate that is truly for peace, liberty and a stable economy.

Ron Paul has been so unfairly marginalized by the Republican establisment and the whore military industrial media that his support will never line up behind any other Republican candidate. Romney can't beat Obama without us and it really doesn't matter. They are two wings of the same bird.

A write in vote against the status quo is just as meaningful as one for more of the same old lies and loss of freedom.Just how meaningful is a vote for more war, inflation and tyranny?

I don't think the Doctor is going to run third party after the establishment coronation of Romney.I'll either write Ron Paul in as a meaningful protest or vote Gary Johnson, on the Libertarian ticket.Its meaningful to be able to look myself in the mirror.